In the simulations therefore, considering moderate conditions during all the campaigns, the effect of wind-induced waves was withdrawn. The hydrodynamics of the model was calibrated and validated by Palacio et al. (2005) using collected ADCP data. They reported the mean absolute error of less than 0.2 m/s between computed and observed velocities at various cross-sections in the tidal

channels. They also claimed Venetoclax that this value represents less than 20% of the tidally averaged value, which can be considered as an acceptable result for the hydrodynamics model. The sediment dynamics of the model was calibrated by Rahbani (2011). Tuning critical bed shear stresses for erosion and sedimentation has been used for the calibration. According to her results the

RMAE errors in each cross-section show significant improvement. However she reported rather poor correlation between the model results and field data. As a first analogy the variation of the current velocity and the SSC along the depth Stem Cell Compound Library purchase obtained from the model are compared with those collected in the field for all monitoring points. The model results had been extracted in such a way that their times and locations were matched with the times and the locations of the field data. The time difference between the field data and the model results for comparison never exceeded 5 min, and the spatial difference of the points in the field data and the Masitinib (AB1010) model did not exceed 50 m. This was found reasonable in view of the grid length being 90 m. Typical profiles of the velocity and SSC for all monitoring points in cross-sections T1 and T2 are presented in Fig. 4 for one ebb condition. The sets of data are those collected from 21 to 23 of March 2000, covering a sequence of spring tides with an average tidal range of about 4 m. It can be seen that the current velocity profiles derived from the model are in good agreement with

those from the field which also approves the results obtained by Jiménez Gonzalez et al. (2005). For the SSC profile however, some dissimilarity was observed between the model results and the field data. In cross-section T1, the SSC profiles derived from the model are generally in good agreement with the field data in monitoring points 1, 2 and 4. Marked disagreement is evident between the model results and field data in profiles 3 and 5–9, especially from the near bed layer to the middle of the depth. In cross-section T2 underprediction by the model is evident in all of the monitoring points except for profiles 1 and 2. Likewise, comparisons between the SSC profiles derived from the model and from the field during a full-tidal cycle revealed certain dissimilarities at shallow parts of the cross-section.